Society loses its sh*t when a case of "pedophilia" emerges.
Just have a look at the news website DailyMail, where men who are attracted to underage girls are perennially placed on the wall of shame. Their pictures are put right up there with the label of "pedophile" and "creepy". Their public image shattered forever, all because SOCIETY has not mentally evolved to where it should be.

This simple thought experiment, in my opinion, makes clear just why "pedophile" is an irrational label:
Let's assume that in the Netherlands, for example, the age of consent for a girl is 16. And let's assume that a 20 year old guy is in love with a girl that will turn 16 in 1 hour. She is technically still 15.
It would seem incredibly silly to label this 20 year old man a "pedophile". It's preposterous!

If we can agree that in this case this man is not REALLY a pedophile, then every other hour we decrease from the age of consent will be equally rational. And if we did this countless times, we could justify a man being attracted to a 12 year old girl.

Pedophilia is one of those grey, murky, ambiguous labels that society uses very often, often at the expense of INNOCENT men.

Wow, I was going to make a topic about this one day but you beat me to it. I feel the same way about the issue. It seems the entire modern western world is turning pedophilia into the biggest crime one could possibly commit. The irony is that of all the possible paraphilias, pedophilia isn't even the worst.

It's always the same bullshit argument when it comes to pedophilia: “underage children can't give consent”. Yeah, as if pets give consent when a zoophile claims to love their pet, and their pet loves them back. As if a corpse can give consent when necrophiles have their way with them.

Besides, stopping child abuse isn't even that high on the list of priorities with organizations like the FBI because they only go after the people who watch child porn, rather than the pedophiles who actually rape kids. This whole “we-must-stop-child-abuse-now!” agenda is a farce. The number one demographic group in society that has the highest amount of pedophiles among them is completely free to do as they please anyway, and they continue to rape kids on a daily basis. And everyone is looking the other way, pretending it's not even happening.

Still, it is almost as if everyone decided to pick pedophilia as the scapegoat for everything. I very much agree that as a society, our stance towards it is just pathetic, SuperEgo. If you are a pedophile when you feel any sort of attraction towards minors, then believe me, there are a heck of a lot of pedophiles out there. But very few people admit to it because officially it's illegal. The thing is, sometimes you can't even tell who's a minor. I've seen underage girls who look like they're 20 or 30 years old, and I've seen 20 year olds who look like minors. I remember some time back this show called the Voice of Holland aired on my national TV, and they had Ariane Grand come over to sing a song or two, and I was like “what the hell is this?” She looked like a 13 year old kid. Apparently she is in her twenties, but man... actually one of the coaches almost seemed to get off when she walked close by him during her act. He was a little too enthusiastic about her. He didn't hide his excitement at all, he openly admitted to it, even though he's married.

I wonder how he would have responded if she was 13 years old instead and looked the same. I bet he would contain himself a lot more. It's just one of these things that pisses me off. Especially since I've seen another striking example of this kind of hypocrisy on Holland's got Talent a few years back. They had an act by a 12 or 13 year old girl who did a belly dance. She did pretty good actually, but one of the jury members, who happens to be a faggot, said “I don't like it. It's not sexy, and it shouldn't be as that would be wrong. You're too young to do this.” Belly dancing is indeed supposed to be sexy, and while that kid might still need a bit of practice, I see no reason why she'd be too young for it. She burst out in tears after that comment. There was another belly dancer, a older women who looked like an unattractive, shriveled prune, and that same homosexual jury said this time “wow, you're so skilled and sexy. You're going to the next round." I was like “get the fuck out of here”. That older woman sucked. She danced like crap, and she wasn't sexy in the slightest. What outrageous bullshit.

However, here in the Netherlands, we have actually moved away from the official underage terms to a more sensible method: so long as there is not a huge difference in age, sexual attraction and sexual activity is allowed with minors. I don't know about the rest of Europe or America, though. I wouldn't be surprised if things are still the same there.

Also I've watched your video. When the guy with the arabic accent started talking, it was pretty obvious to me it was fake. And I'm a foreigner. How can an american not see through that? Even the first guy, with the high pitched voice who sounds eerily like a faggot, seemed a bit fake. The part where they started singing a song was also quite obviously just for show. It wasn't even funny. I'm getting the impression it's a fake prank call.

Firstly, I want to make one thing very clear here. A person who is attracted to teenagers is not a pedophile. This person, assuming the object of desire is a pubescent teenager between 14-19 year of age, is called an ephebophile. If the lust in question is for a pubescent girl between the ages of 11-14, this is called hebephilia. The term pedophile means somebody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Now that we've got that out of the way, anybody who knows me knows that I'm an open ephebophile. I can't change it and I don't want to - teen girls are sexually attractive to me. I've always been attracted to younger girls, for as long as I've been "aware" of girls in that way. I was 16 when I lost my virginity to my 15 year old virgin girlfriend, but at some point I just kept getting older while the cheerleaders and schoolgirls just stayed the same age.

I would never, ever rape, molest, hurt a child or a non-consenting girl of any age, but the whole "X years old is old enough to consent but X-1 is not!" concept has always fucked me off. As SuperEgo implies, how does a girl somehow magically become a mature adult at 16/18/21/whatever when legally speaking they were not a month before their birthday?? Pure bullshit.

Also, finding something or somebody sexually attractive and feeling the biological desire to mate with them is never wrong. Depending on who or what it is you're desiring to fuck, it may be very wrong to actually go through with it, however. Just because I like to look at teen girls doesn't make me a rapist, a pedophile, creeper, molester, or anything else.

God and/or Science have developed the wonder of adolescent puberty in humans for a good reason. Whether your argument is religious or scientific, evidence abounds in your culture that puberty signifies the onset of procreation age. Look through your Bible, read your evolution journals. People have been mating after the onset of puberty FOR ALL TIME. It is only fairly recently (the last hundred years or so) that the masses, particularly in America and the west, have decided that teenagers must be MUCH OLDER than nature and their own bodies tell them, before they are ALLOWED to express sexual desires. This repressive madness is leading to the downfall of the human race.

Now if you'll excuse me for you, I need to keep filling out my application for my Netherlands citizenship! ;)

Jackie Wrote:
I've seen another striking example of this kind of hypocrisy on Holland's got Talent a few years back. They had an act by a 12 or 13 year old girl who did a belly dance. She did pretty good actually, but one of the jury members, who happens to be a faggot, said “I don't like it. It's not sexy, and it shouldn't be as that would be wrong. You're too young to do this

We could easily ask the jury members: "How old should the girl be in order for her dance to be acceptable?"
ANY number they give will be incoherent, because what if a girl was 1 day younger than their "bare minimum age"? It's insane to think that there is a certain age that is acceptable. It's preposterous.

All "minimum age of consent" figures propagated by governments and cultures are arbitrary, and beg the question. Why 14? Or why 16? What is it about these numbers that makes them magically immune to pedophilia?

Jackie Wrote:
However, here in the Netherlands, we have actually moved away from the official underage terms to a more sensible method: so long as there is not a huge difference in age, sexual attraction and sexual activity is allowed with minors. I don't know about the rest of Europe or America, though. I wouldn't be surprised if things are still the same there.

What differentiates a minor from a non-minor?

Venomous Wrote:
Firstly, I want to make one thing very clear here. A person who is attracted to teenagers is not a pedophile. This person, assuming the object of desire is a pubescent teenager between 14-19 year of age, is called an ephebophile. If the lust in question is for a pubescent girl between the ages of 11-14, this is called hebephilia. The term pedophile means somebody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

So in a matter of a SECOND, when a girl first turns 11, the individual who is attracted to her will shift from a pedophile to an ephebophile?
Okay, but why is there this specific categorization? Why is the age range of 11-14 considered its own category, while 14-19 considered a distinct category?

Venomous Wrote:
I would never, ever rape, molest, hurt a child or a non-consenting girl of any age, but the whole "X years old is old enough to consent but X-1 is not!" concept has always fucked me off

Same here! It boggles my brain how anyone could set a boundary when it comes to age.

Venomous Wrote:
As SuperEgo implies, how does a girl somehow magically become a mature adult at 16/18/21/whatever when legally speaking they were not a month before their birthday?? Pure bullshit.

Exactly!

Venomous Wrote:
Now if you'll excuse me for you, I need to keep filling out my application for my Netherlands citizenship! ;)

Now look what you've done, Jackie :P (Just kidding Venomous, I am with you 100%)

Venomous wrote:Firstly, I want to make one thing very clear here. A person who is attracted to teenagers is not a pedophile. This person, assuming the object of desire is a pubescent teenager between 14-19 year of age, is called an ephebophile. If the lust in question is for a pubescent girl between the ages of 11-14, this is called hebephilia. The term pedophile means somebody who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Venomous wrote:the whole "X years old is old enough to consent but X-1 is not!" concept has always fucked me off. As SuperEgo implies, how does a girl somehow magically become a mature adult at 16/18/21/whatever when legally speaking they were not a month before their birthday?? Pure bullshit.

You don't like seeing age tags on teenage sexuality, but you think using age to define the differences between pedos and associated paraphilias is alright? Hmmm. Sniff sniff. Do I smell hypocrisy here?

SuperEgo wrote:What differentiates a minor from a non-minor?

Age. A minor is younger than 18. This tends to differ per country, of course.

Now look what you've done, Jackie :P (Just kidding Venomous, I am with you 100%)

I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms. Actually we even have a political party for pedophiles.

Venomous wrote:Also, finding something or somebody sexually attractive and feeling the biological desire to mate with them is never wrong.

I very much disagree. These days there's way too much approval and encouragement of abnormal sexual attraction and behaviors. You can't tell me that allowing every kind of sexual deviancy is a good thing.

Okay, let me try to clarify a few things, and in the process probably dig myself further into the hole...

Firstly, the difference between infantiphilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, "normal" (I hate that word) sexual attraction to adults (which I don't think has a clinical term), and gerontophilia, is purely academic. I wasn't meaning to imply that I agree with labeling sexual attraction with such terms, only that they do exist. Now me personally, I have a strong sexual attraction toward teenage girls, but am rarely sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, so IF I were to define myself, I would clinically be regarded as an ephebophile, with some ephebophilic leanings. I'm only being technical here. Personally I think it's nobody else's business who or what I'm attracted to. But those are the terms that a psychiatrist would use to describe my sexual orientation. However a police office, journalist, parent, or most of the general public would still call me "pedophile".

I couldn't agree more with SuperEgo's position that any age of consent - or any labeling whatsoever - is completely arbitrary because of the X-1 second logic. The law says that a girl has to be (let's say) 18 before she can put a man's penis in her vagina. How old does she have to be before she can hold a dick in her hand? Or masturbate? Or flash her boobs to a friend? Or have a cuddle? Where and why do we draw these lines? Who decides, well, this underage person can look at a picture of a cock but not an actual cock? Okay they can look at it but not touch it. Okay they can touch it but not suck it. Okay they can suck it but not use it to penetrate their genitals? And why oh why is okay for person X to do ANY of it if person who is X-1 second would render the act illegal??

Further, I've never understood the concept of enforcing a maximum age gap between consenting partners. Why is it okay for two seventeen year olds to fuck, and it's okay for an eighteen year old to fuck a fifty year old, but if a fifteen year old and a twenty year old want to fuck, that's illegal?? Who decides how old you have to be before an age gap is no longer relevant?

Jackie, where do you draw the line between which sexual paraphilias are okay and which are abnormal? Pedophilia is okay, homosexuality is not? Where do you stand on bestiality? Rape? Gerontophilia?

Well, I'm glad you don't actually agree with these clinical terms. Only really crazy people use them to describe themselves or their friends. Some words, like homosexual, pedophile, zoophile, objectophile, and necrophile are fair because almost everyone has heard of them, but once I see someone use special terms to describe very specific variations of a well-known sexual deviancy, I usually fear the worst. Most of the time these words are thrown around by the absolute worst sexual offenders. There's a certain subculture that almost makes a habit out of it, as if they want others to know that their specific sexual perversion exists, and they want to be acknowledged for it. And trust me, you do not want to identify with this subculture.

I agree the current age restrictions on sexuality do not make sense, but I do know why they have been introduced. Without this black-and white restriction, a lot more kids would have been molested. The issue is most people do not understand what kind of behavior is acceptable or not if there aren't any guidelines or regulations to control them. The only reason why everyone is generally so opposed to pedophilia is because it's prohibited by law. If you leave it to the people to decide what is right or wrong, we would sooner or later get an international epidemic of horrible sexual perversion. The legal issues with age restrictions on sexuality are indeed a really silly and bothersome nuisance for those who know what they're doing, but most people are too irresponsible to just let them have their way.

Venomous wrote:Jackie, where do you draw the line between which sexual paraphilias are okay and which are abnormal? Pedophilia is okay, homosexuality is not? Where do you stand on bestiality? Rape? Gerontophilia?

I think all sexual deviancies are wrong, no matter how minor. But for me what's important is how people view their own sexuality, and how the rest of the world does. No matter how perverted and sick someone might be, as long as they know it's wrong and abnormal, and they keep it to themselves and don't go around trying to make others accept them for the sick bastards they are, I'm okay with it.

However, the issue with a lot of deviants nowadays is that the perverts are working together to demand acceptance. They go pretty far to get what they want, too. I'll write a few articles about it one day. It's not exactly a minor problem.

As for rape, well, it really depends on what kind of rape you're talking about. I don't really approve of the unprovoked kind, but I like it when women get raped when they are asking for it.

I've never heard of gerontophilia. I actually had to look it up, so it must be very rare.

Last edited by Jackie on Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jackie wrote:Well, I'm glad you don't actually agree with these clinical terms. Only really crazy people use them to describe themselves or their friends. Some words, like homosexual, pedophile, zoophile, objectophile, and necrophile are fair because almost everyone has heard of them, but once I see someone use special terms to describe very specific variations of a well-known sexual deviancy, I usually fear the worst. Most of the time these words are thrown around by the absolute worst sexual offenders. There's a certain subculture that almost makes a habit out of it, as if they want others to know that their specific sexual perversion exists, and they want to be acknowledged for it. And trust me, you do not want to identify with this subculture.

Personally, if I had to be defined, I'd rather identify as an ephebophile or parthenophile than a pedophile. Pedophiles get a really bad rap, and rightly so. I still don't see what's wrong with being attracted to a sexually mature girl who happens to be aged younger than your country of residence's age of consent, though.

Jackie wrote:I think all sexual deviancies are wrong, no matter how minor. But for me what's important is how people view their own sexuality, and how the rest of the world does. No matter how perverted and sick someone might be, as long as they know it's wrong and abnormal, and they keep it to themselves and don't go around trying to make others accept them for the sick bastards they are, I'm okay with it.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I use Social Deviancy as an outlet for my perversions. It's not like I'm going to put up pictures of sexy 14 year olds on my Facebook or LinkedIn profile, really. My close friends know what I'm into and respect it, and nobody else really needs to. What I think about when I'm pulling my dick in the privacy of my own bedroom, bathroom, or local train station are nobody's business but my own. ;)

Jackie wrote:However, the issue with a lot of deviants nowadays is that the perverts are working together to demand acceptance. They go pretty far to get what they want, too. I'll write a few articles about it one day. It's not exactly a minor problem.

Great, I'd love to see this article.

Jackie wrote:I've never heard of gerontophilia. I actually had to look it up, so it must be very rare.

Because you haven't heard of something, it must be rare? You think too highly of your own intellect, I think. =)

Sorry, my bad. I must be blind for missing how badly I mistyped that quote. It's fixed now.

Venomous wrote:Great, I'd love to see this article.

Just practicing my quoting skills... looks good, hm? Be careful what you wish for though. These articles may not be as pleasant as you imagine. It's going to be very offensive, vulgar and shocking, and most disheartening. I can hear you thinking "Nothing new there, right?" Well, actually, the sort of stuff you've seen from me so far was nothing compared to what you'll see once these higher grade articles are posted. IF I'll be allowed to post them at all... I am talking about the sort of content that contains a deep truth, so horrible, so shocking, so unbelievably cringe-worthy, so incredibly sick, you're not going to believe you never knew these things before, your soul will be crushed with the knowledge that such injustice is taking place right under your very own eyes. It's the sort of thing that will make people cry, induce chronic depression or make someone commit suicide after reading it.

It's the sort of thing that will attract my worst enemies. They'll probably come swarming to this site like a hive of angry bees, and I don't know if you'll be able to equip yourself with enough defensive measures to prevent an absolute disaster when that time comes. I'll talk a little more about this issue in the other thread where spirochete filed a complaint. I'm not going to rush to push these kind of articles out, due to the issues associated with it.

By the way, if I haven't heard of a sexual deviancy, it's certainly not a common one. It's just a matter of being informed. Nothing more to it.

Venomous wrote:Pedophiles get a really bad rap, and rightly so

Personally I really don't believe the extreme anti-pedo stance the modern western world has embraced. There's a heck of a lot of known pedo's who aren't being dealt with. If you ask me, its all smoke and mirrors.

Venomous wrote:It's not like I'm going to put up pictures of sexy 14 year olds on my Facebook or LinkedIn profile, really. My close friends know what I'm into and respect it, and nobody else really needs to. What I think about when I'm pulling my dick in the privacy of my own bedroom, bathroom, or local train station are nobody's business but my own. ;)

If everyone thought about it that way, sexual perversion wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately perverts are becoming more aggressive and more dangerous, and they keep trying to force their sexuality into other people's lives. The new generation is taking the full hit, and I don't have any hope they'll turn out all right.

Now, I still have some apprehension when it comes to fully "accepting" homosexuality, though I must say, I accept it 90% now. (I'm sorry, but that's the truth)

My only complaint towards homosexuality is the fact that gay people's babies will not have half of each of their parents' genetics.
In the case of surrogacy, one of the faggots (I'm calling them that because I'm remember the times we used to bond over this topic hehe) will give his sperm to a surrogate mother. But what about the husband of that faggot? That's right.. his genetics are nowhere to be found in the baby that emerges.

This is a problem, in my opinion, because the baby biologically belongs to only one of the parents.

SuperEgo wrote:Jackie and Venomous, what is your stance on homosexuality?

I like to think of myself as a live and let live - or live and let die - kinda guy. I don't like to get in people's faces about their lifestyle choices, and I don't like other people judging me for mine. I know only that I'm definitely not gay myself. I love girls, I love the way they look, the way they feel, the way they smell, I love the curve of a breast and the jut of a collarbone, the way a nice ass looks in a pair of Daisy Dukes, and so much more. I've never been attracted to men, I find them lumpy and hairy and utilitarian, a workhorse gender that as a rule, lacks any kind of physical sexual beauty. Don't get me wrong, I've seen attractive men before, and I'll be the first to speak up when I do. But I don't have a lust for men the way I do for women, they don't stir my heart or my loins, or anything in between the way women do all the time.

That said, I have homosexual friends, I have bisexual friends, and I of course have straight friends. I've also been known to have friends who have engaged in incest, child molestation, pornography and/or masturbation addiction, violence towards the opposing gender, and many other commonly considered "poor traits". The only thing I will generally judge a person on is how they conduct themselves and how they treat me. What they like to do behind locked doors is NONE of my business.

I do support gay marriage however, as much as I can support the idea of ANYBODY getting married (not, to this date, a fan overall, but maybe I just haven't met the right girl!). I'll be curiously watching Facebook to see what the rate of gay divorce ends up being like. I do agree with you, SuperEgo, about children of gay parents only having one parent's DNA, but then I guess it's better than regular adoption where the child isn't blood related to either parents, and some of those kids grow up okay, don't they? I think love is more important than blood. Some of the people I'm blood related to are fucking idiots, but the people I love have earned my love, and if they don't fuck me over, will have it for life.

I'm not Wiccan, but I do believe in their rede: An' it harm none, do as thou wilt. So long as no dudes try to put their cocks in my ass or mine in theirs, I have no complaints about homosexuality.